Related to the heresy of democracy is the problem of freedom. In a Righteous Republic, there is freedom to worship, but in a democracy there is the worship of freedom. In the one, there is freedom to worship God according to the Bible, and unbiblical and pagan religions are suppressed. In the other, freedom itself is worshipped, and eventually the true worship of God is suppressed.

There is a sense in which ”freedom” is a good thing. The Bible says so. But it never advocates freedom merely as freedom, or freedom for freedom’s sake. The freedom God approves of is freedom from sin and freedom to worship and obey Him. God freed Israel from Egypt, not so the Jews could sin all they wanted to, but so they could worship and obey God rather than Pharaoh. The same is true in personal salvation: God saves us and frees us, not so that we can serve sin (which is slavery) but so that we can serve Christ (which is true freedom). See how it works?

“Freedom” in a democracy, however, has a different meaning altogether from freedom in a Righteous Republic. Democratic freedom is what is shown in Judges 21:25, “Everyone did what was right in his eyes.” Such freedom means freedom to “do your own thing,” regardless of what God or the Bible says. Democratic freedom means freedom to sin, not freedom to worship God in God’s way.

Most of us would agree that tyranny, such as Marxism, is against the idea of freedom of worship. That is only partly true. Human tyranny believes in a sort of freedom of worship – the freedom to worship Man, be he the Caesar, the Pharaoh, the Furher or the State, which is Man collectivized. Human tyranny does not recognize the freedom to worship God, for such is a false religion which must be suppressed.

Most see that in tyranny. Bur I suggest that the same is true in democracy, at least as it differs from the Righteous Republic. Granted, Christians may enjoy the freedom to worship God for awhile; many do. But in principle, democracy is antithetical to true worship of God. It is schizophrenic – it is pressed between righteousness and unrighteousness, between God and Man. And it always gives in to Man and unrighteousness. Eventually, democracy becomes an opponent of the Righteous Republic, and opens the door to one of two things.

I notice that the author presents democracy as "worship of freedom", tyranny and Marxism as "worship of man", and this Righteous Republic as "worship of God". So where does one go for a situation where absolutely nothing is worshiped, in their eyes?

I would like to direct the eyes of my fellow commentators to one line in particular, taken from the original article:

"To be good, something must be biblical, rather than merely ancient."

That's the problem with fundies in a nutshell. By their code of morality, ONLY things decreed in their holy book are good and correct, EVERYTHING else is evil and wrong.

Hence the above article. In a democracy, there is freedom to choose between worshipping or not worshipping. To a fundie, this is not something to be desired, but rather something to be abhored, since in their eyes it is offering a good and evil option and doing nothing to differentiate between the two.

This is the sort of fundie view that is truly scary. These are not the people who believe that god must have had a valid reason for commiting what we see as evil acts. To them, the fact that God was responsible means by definition that it is good, and nothing else will sway them.

How do you talk, argue and hopefully convince someone of something when they possess an entirely different concept of morality to you?

The "tyranny of Marx" was only ever intended to be a brief, regrettably necessary transitional period before establishing true communism, which was supposed to be an entirely free system. That the transition has yet to be successfully attempted without veering off into full blown, continuous tyranny has no bearing on Marx' intentions or motives, which were humanitarian.

The tyranny of your god, by comparison, is eternal, intentionally so, and formulated only to please said god, regardless of how anyone else feels about it.

And the plutocracies that arise and distort democracy in the unrestricted capitalist, christian, conservative society your ilk would propagate are practically indistinguishable from tyranny, at least from the perspective of the common man whom they have over a barrel and don't give a fuck about beyond his capacity to be subjugated and exploited.

Yes, you see that remark of yours about Israel, Egypt, and God? That is why we do not think he sounds like a good person to pledge fealty to. Because he only cares about himself and even if he does anything to help you he won't do it in a really helpful way and it'll be only for his own aggrandizement. For him. He doesn't care about you.

What I don't understand is how you have, rather than denying that selfishness, EMBRACED it and deemed it good.

"There is a sense in which ”freedom” is a good thing. The Bible says so. But it never advocates freedom merely as freedom, or freedom for freedom’s sake. The freedom God approves of is freedom from sin and freedom to worship and obey Him. God freed Israel from Egypt, not so the Jews could sin all they wanted to, but so they could worship and obey God rather than Pharaoh. The same is true in personal salvation: God saves us and frees us, not so that we can serve sin (which is slavery) but so that we can serve Christ (which is true freedom). See how it works? "

So freedom works by not being able to sin? Which, according to the Bible, especially Leviticus, means having almost no freedom at all?

"Related to the heresy of democracy is the problem of freedom. In a Righteous Republic (e.g., Saudi Arabia or Iran), there is freedom to worship, but in a democracy there is the worship of freedom. In the one, there is freedom to worship Allah according to the Quran, and un-Islamic and pagan religions are suppressed. In the other, freedom itself is worshiped, and eventually the true worship of Allah is suppressed.

There is a sense in which ”freedom” is a good thing. The Bible and Quran say so. But it never advocates freedom merely as freedom, or freedom for freedom’s sake. The freedom Allah approves of is freedom from sin and freedom to worship and obey Him. Allah freed Israel from Egypt, not so the Jews could sin all they wanted to, but so they could worship and obey Allah rather than Pharaoh. The same is true in personal salvation: Allah saves us and frees us, not so that we can serve sin (which is slavery) but so that we can serve Allah (which is true freedom). See how it works?

“Freedom” in a democracy, however, has a different meaning altogether from freedom in a Righteous Republic. Democratic freedom is what is shown in Judges 21:25, “Everyone did what was right in his eyes.” Such freedom means freedom to “do your own thing,” regardless of what Allah or the Bible says. Democratic freedom means freedom to sin, not freedom to worship Allah in Allah’s way.

Most of us would agree that tyranny, such as Marxism, is against the idea of freedom of worship. That is only partly true. Human tyranny believes in a sort of freedom of worship – the freedom to worship Man, be he the Caesar, the Pharaoh, the Fuhrer or the State, which is Man collectivized. Human tyranny does not recognize the freedom to worship Allah, for such is a false religion which must be suppressed." ETC, ETC. ...

Performing reconnaissance on the site in general, I tried fishing out a doctrinal statement (always a good thing to look for). He doesn't have one fully fledged, but he says he is in near-total agreement with one authored by Matthew Slick. The summary: "Finally, in short, I am a five point calvinist, amillennial, post-trib rapture, peudobaptistic (not for salvation), non-cessationist, and covenantal." I have to admit that the "Five-point Calvinist" element explains quite a bit.

Indeed, he is VERY pro-predestination, and one of Slick's articles that he reprints actually says that when God said that he wills all to be saved, the "all" is only referring to Christians! Given that predestination bit, we can narrow the concept down to RTCs, I imagine...

Even better, in one of De Albatrus's own articles, at http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/myth_separation_church_state.htm, I notice this tidbit: "There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another." I guess this is why he seems to think it's impossible to not worship at least one thing?